Larry Nocella

I've Got A Cool Idea, Let's Move AWAY From War! (Or, My Qualifications As an Ass Surgeon)

2008-08-26T09:06:00.003-04:00

As we get closer to the U.S. Presidential election I really feel we're fighting for the future of humanity. Okay, maybe it's not that important, as important as it is, but John "Whacky Mac" McCain really frightens me. In the grand scheme of human history, I'd like to do what little I can to push my fellow primates AWAY from war, but we seem to be moving in the opposite direction, where out-of-touch bloodthirsty lunatics (commonly called Neo-Cons) call for war with the same casual attitude as one might order pizza delivery.

Whacky Mac and his fellow war trolls aren't calling for less war, or even the same amount. They want to increase it. McCain is threatening Iran, threatening Russia, etc. so I definitely won't be voting Republican this year (not that I do any year truthfully, although my local guy is actually not so bad, then again, he doesn't have access to nukes.)

It's funny to me that McCain was a P.O.W. decades ago and he claims this makes him competent to conduct war. I was mugged about 20 years ago, would any one do anything except laugh if I insisted that qualified me for a job as police chief of a major city? I once had a cyst removed from my butt; imagine if I strolled into the local hospital and demanded to be made the Chief Ass Surgeon based on that alone. Yeah, I'd sound as ridiculous as Whacky Mac.

McCain claimed, "I know how to win wars." Assuming war has a victor, what war has he actually won? The two he was heavily involved in (Vietnam and Iraq) are counted as losses.

Then every time Whacky Mac says something stupid (bombing Iran, offering 5 million dollars as the barrier between middle class and rich) the repeated defense of his followers is "Oh, he's just joking." Well, when the hell does he get serious about things like war and people's financial survival? Whacky Mac, how do I pay my mortgage? "Sit down, son, and let me tell you about the time I was a P.O.W." No, gramps! Enough! We've all heard it a thousand times. Move toward PEACE. Evolve. Please!

I know Obama and Biden are politicians. I know they will do things that upset me, that I disagree with, things that are slimy, but at least, at the very least, they seem to be capable of considering the weight of their decisions, the impact of what they say, and the fact that war isn't something to stroll into and stay in with a ho-hum (and laughing!) attitude.

I'm sick of war being this thing we live with, something described as a last option, but always used first. I want to get back to working for solutions other than war. I want humanity to move away from war, not towards it. Let's move towards peace.

That’s why I can't deal with Whacky Mac (and the goon squad that owns him) and why I will vote for Obama.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Experts With No Expertise (a.k.a. Talking Out Your Ass)

2008-08-07T15:18:00.007-04:00

September 11 impacted our world in millions of ways, but one of the more obscure ways it left its mark was how it created a lot of self-proclaimed demolition experts. Overnight, thousands of ordinary people who had never studied architecture, aerodynamics, airline disasters, chemistry or physics somehow were certain they knew exactly how a skyscraper should behave after being hit by a plane going full speed.

These newborn experts just knew something wasn't right. The towers acted more like buildings laced with explosives than buildings that had just been hit by what was essentially a missile. I believe this self-anointed "expertise" is what drives a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy movement. Of course, the other part that drives that movement is the very real, very obvious criminal behavior of the Bush thugs. So I don't want to be too harsh on these overnight 9/11 experts. Being suspicious that the Bush criminal regime had a direct hand in 9/11 is forgivable, because it's been proven over and over, more each day, that they fabricated a war. Suspecting them of orchestrating something comparatively small like 9/11 is understandable.

What's not forgivable is thinking you know all about gays when you're not gay.

Whoa! Mental whiplash! How did we leap from 9/11 to gayness? Via Pat Robertson? No, we didn't take the Asshole Express! Gayness and 9/11 are connected because all things are connected, but the specific relationship I'm focusing on is that regarding both subjects, there are people drawing conclusions as if they are experts when they are very far from it. With 9/11 conspiracy theories, lots of people think they're knowledgeable about building demolition, architecture, etc. something they previously had no clue about. Similarly, when it comes to homosexuality, people who are not gay (they claim) speak as if they are somehow miraculously experts on the experience of being gay.

I'm referring to those folks who are completely, vocally and often violently opposed to gays having any rights based on their unique natures. These people insist they are not gay, yet somehow they are expert enough on human sexuality to know for sure that being gay is unnatural, it's a choice, and not the way one was born. Imagine the odds of being so certain about gay nature yet not being gay yourself or, not having studied gay people for years. Still, everywhere you look, there's some moron claiming, "I'm not gay, but I know for sure being gay is a choice."

There's a lot to be said for skepticism and making up one's own mind. I'm not advocating assumptions, which is why, after all these years of discussion, when every single gay person interviewed, talked to, questioned about their nature, unanimously says, "It's not a choice, this is how I was born" it is irrational to disbelieve them. Bigots want to believe that being gay is a choice. That way, they can convince themselves being gay doesn't qualify one for any rights. According to them, it's a preference as superficial as whether you like white or black socks (while also being weighty enough to determine if you're destined for Heaven or Hell.)

However, now the science is in. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait, and it's hard-wired into some of us, as the following articles demonstrate: Science Shows Being Gay Not A Choice and Gay Animals Out of the Closet. I'm glad there has been exhaustive research showing that being gay is not a choice.

However, I'm saddened that for some people, the science was necessary. Actually for bigots, they'll probably deny the science too, but what I'm complaining about is, why can't people just BELIEVE gays when they insist (when every single one interviewed on TV, radio, in print, on the net, insists) they are how they are because that's how they were born?

Interviewing a subject, gathering answers and comparing those answers is science, too. It's psychology. Could gays all be under some mass delusion and not realize they were simply choosing to be gay? That's the ridiculous scenario those cult-like organizations that promise to un-gay people want you to believe.

Even if it was a choice, it is a choice for a heterosexual to get married, and the breeder gets many benefits from that. To deny the same option to a fellow citizen just because they are gay is ridiculous, even if you believe the fallacy that being gay is a choice. When you accept the fact that bring gay is a trait people are born with, then you're denying rights to people for reasons beyond their control, and that's a real crime. There's your answer to why people insist it's a choice. It's much easier to deny rights to a group if you convince others the group exists by choice and members can opt-out at any time.

Maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe people don't have gay friends, but for me, I didn't need science at all.

The first person who came out to me was a high school friend I had known for years. I couldn't deny he was my friend. I was speechless but when I could talk again, I had so many questions. "How do you know? When did you know?"

He said, "I realized I was attracted to guys probably around the same time you started noticing girls." In other words, it was not a choice. Every gay person I've met, read about, heard about, etc. has said the exact same thing. It's not a choice. It's just how some people are. I believed my friend, and the evidence later on supported it. Let's kill the "Gayness is a choice" meme!

I drove on in silence, just the two of us alone in the car. "By the way," my friend added, "If it makes you feel any better, you're not my type."

I cannot tell a lie. It did make me feel better.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Obama's Berlin Speech: Obama Gets an F in Global Douche-Baggery. Fox News reports, "Much like Hitler, Obama riles huge crowd of Germans."

2008-07-25T20:07:00.004-04:00

The mainstream media is reporting that Obama went to Berlin and made an inspiring speech. They're focusing on what happened, but that's only half the picture.

They're not telling the full story. The half they are missing is what Obama do NOT do.

A brief list of some specifics:
1. He didn't laugh about bombing another country. (McCain did)
2. He didn't joke about killing the civilians in another country. (Whacky Mac again)
3. He didn't try to massage another world leader as if they were horny college kids. (Bush did)
4. He didn't mangle the English language. (Bush)
5. Lost a city (Bush-Katrina-New Orleans) Etc.

In short, what happened was Obama gave a rousing speech. What DID NOT happen was he didn't act like McBush and embarrass America or us Americans on a global stage. In fact, he actually made us sound pretty cool, which is a refreshing change from our current president, who seems intent on making the world hate us. I guess he's really jonesing for yet another "new Pearl Harbor" that will result in dead Americans but help his buddy John "Whacky Mac" McCain.

I hope this keeps up! How great would it be for Europeans to say, " Yor presdent ya kool" instead of "Vy ist yor presdent so eedyot?"

UPDATE: This blog was originally posted on Friday July 25, 2008. The title makes a joke about Fox comparing Obama speaking in front of Germans to Hitler. Last night (Monday July 28, 2008) Fox news pundit Charles Krauthammer did exactly that. How sad that a JOKE ends up being on Fox for real. Oh Fox, you're so asinine and so predictable. Since we're on the topic of people calling each other nasty German stereotypes, I won't make a big deal of the fact that your name is "Kraut-hammer."

MORE UPDATING: Unfortunately, Ben Stein, washed-up gameshow host, also made the Nazi connection on CNN two days prior (Wednesday July 23, 2008.) Sometimes I can't believe how many people make money just commenting on who they think is going to win the election. Does anyone care what they think? Does their opinion on who is going to win the horse race mean anything? Affect anything?

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Didjya hear? The Iraq War was really about... OIL! (Really!)

2008-07-21T16:02:00.009-04:00

Lately I've been disturbed by how some journalists hide behind standards so much that they can't state an obvious truth.

I'll refer to one specific example, a paragraph deep in the New York Times article, Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back by Andrew E. Kramer on June 19, 2008. The article explains how after several decades absent from oil-rich Iraq, huge oil firms are gearing up to return thanks to contracts offered by the US-backed Iraqi government.

The article is some fine reporting until we get to this contender for Understatement of the Century: "There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry."

In other words, we're still not quite sure that the USA vs. Iraq wars that began almost 20 years ago with King Bush the First are about oil. In fact, we're not sure even though the same article states the contracts the US oil firms have been awarded are "no bid" contracts, and all such contracts, by some irrelevant coincidence, went to American firms.

Yes, there have been "parts" of the American public who suspected the Iraq War(s) were simply to secure oil. Being one of those people, I can also tell you that I have another sneaking suspicion that up is up and down is down. In addition, I want to know what parts of the American public did NOT have the suspicion that military action in Iraq was about oil. Why? Because I need to alert them to the fact that my pubic hairs are currently on sale for a limited time, each one guaranteed to bring good luck, for a mere $10,000 each.

Even some people who were pro-Iraq War back in 2003 before this phase of it started, those few who were bluntly honest said, "Hey we need the oil, so we've got to take it." Regardless of pro or anti war stance, only people who were being deliberately dishonest or diplomatic to the point of dishonesty said the war was NOT about oil.

However, let's give the NYT a benefit. Maybe we walk in different circles. Maybe the people I hang with are distrustful of lies told to them by habitual liars. Maybe my crew is an extra paranoid bunch and when a guy whose family has gotten wealthy off oil decides to launch a war for an oil rich country, well, we're naturally going to be suspicious. It's what we do. Maybe it's just that I associate with folks who, after the 100th different lie is blown apart and the 1,000th new revelation that oil is being protected above everything else, always cry, "I give up. This darn war is about oil no matter what they say."

Anyway, it's not just the NYT I want to lash with my witty sarcasm, it's the standards of mainstream journalism. How is it that they are so timid? How is it that the New York Times, one of the most powerful media outlets in the world, can't just say it for what it is? How is it that when someone spouts bullshit in my life I can just say "You're a liar," but in the media world, they will say anything but? In fact, I'd like to try an experiment. I wonder if Bush just came out and said "I'm a liar," if the NYT would still hesitate to call him a liar.

Okay, so maybe the comparison is oversimplified, but why can't journalism take the bullshit-calling technology of average folk and apply it to their life? Why can't the NYT just say, "The fact that the no-bid contracts are going only to American companies from Iraq's American-advised Oil Ministry is another point in favor of those who believe the Iraq War was primarily about oil."

Maybe I'm not even living up to my own standard here, so let me call it: The President has the corporate media where he wants them. They can't criticize him too harshly or he'll just refuse to talk to them. Then how will they write the story? So the press tip-toes lightly to preserve that all-important access.

That's why I think there should be mandated press conferences with the President, with people selected at random, not reporters, given access. The whole concept of a "Washington Press Corps" to me smells anti-democratic. Of course they're going to form an ass-kissing clique. Those randomly selected citizens would be able to ask whatever question they like and the whole thing would be televised.

The random selection of the participants would be key. Meaning, they would have to be stocked with real people, not obvious tools as in a bogus McCain "town hall" meeting.

Until the world accepts my superb idea, we can rely on big media for their access to the powerful, but we sure can't rely on them for a tough analysis. For that, I'll turn to blogs and internet forums.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Goodbye from World's Biggest Polluter via the World's Biggest Asshole AND Big Air vs. Big Oil AND "Let Them Eat Cake" for a New Generation

2008-07-11T15:19:00.006-04:00

There was so much in the news today that warranted comment, I just had to break from my roughly (VERY roughly!) bi-weekly blog entry schedule to share some thoughts.

Goodbye from World's Biggest Polluter via the World's Biggest Asshole
Have the Repugnant-Cons decided that their way to cling to power is to make the most inappropriate and lame ass jokes possible, thereby removing any doubt that they are lunatics who don't care who lives or dies as a result of their thoughtless actions?

I think they have! Observe Bush, saying "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" as he leaves the G8 summit. It's pure tragicomedy. The tragedy comes from this powerful man who considers that polluting the entire planet, destroying the only thing ALL of us (including him) have is some kind of light-hearted laughing matter. The comedy is that the USA is no longer the biggest polluter. According to the article, China is. Even in arrogance, he can't get the facts straight. What an asshole.

Big Air vs. Big Oil
I once read a theory on why animal attacked by a predator screams. I can't remember the source or I would quote it, but the question posed was, what basis is there for expending energy to scream when all your strength should be concentrated on struggling to get away? The answer speculated upon was that the screaming could be a way of attracting other predators. This will cause the two predators to fight over the potential food, giving the screaming animal time to escape.

In short, there's no way a prey animal can win in a one on one fight versus a predator. The prey has to get the predators to fight each other in order to survive. Stretching that analogy further explains in my mind why the Enron scandal blew up into such a big deal.

Rich corporations (predators) have been attacking their workers (prey) for years and it's never been worth commenting on to the wealthy media and political species. However, the criminals at Enron were so greedy, they didn't just steal from the workers, they even ended up stealing from the rich people who invested in them. That's what led to the outrage from the media, the government, etc. Poor people can be (and are) trampled in bulk every day in human history and it doesn't merit a news story, but when the rich get screwed by one of their own, now that's an injustice.

So I was very excited when I opened my email this morning and found a letter from twelve Airline CEOs demanding more regulation of oil speculation. Summarized: oil speculation is the trading that occurs prior to the oil being sold to someone who is actually going to use it. Each time the oil is traded, it becomes more expensive. Without much regulation, that trading prior to someone using the oil can occur enough to drive the oil prices sky high, before anyone who is actually going to use the oil buys it. Imagine that! One industry calling for regulation of another! Awesome.

So years and years of the average consumer screaming about petrol prices has resulted in... nothing. But now that a fellow predator (Big Air is slimy) is attacking another predator (Big Oil is the slimiest) we can expect to see some change. So it is in the USA, where corporations rule too much.

Visit the site and stick it to Big Oil. Big Air is a bunch of jerks, too, but NO ONE is worse than Big Oil. Go to http://www.stopoilspeculationnow.com/.

"Let Them Eat Cake" for a New Generation
I know, I know. There's all kinds of debate as to whether Marie Antoinette said her famous line. The story may be false, but it has its uses (like religion.)

Regardless of if she actually said "Let them in cake," in response to being told the peasants were revolting because they had no bread, it clearly fits the mind-set of out-of-touch fortunates like her. In short, it doesn't matter if she said it or not, because Phil Gramm just did.

Who's Phil Gramm? Presidential McCandidate John McCain's top economic adviser. Gramm claims the U.S. economy is doing great, that the recession we're in exists only in the imaginations of the depressed and the U.S. is a bunch of whiners.

Hey Phil! First, shut up. Second, you're probably worth a few million or you wouldn't have been selected to be an insane presidential candidate's top economic adviser, so what do you know about what is and isn't in recession? Third, who cares if we're in recession or not? What's important is the lack of a social safety net. I've got a great job, but one downsize, one favoritism that saves someone else's job and gets met laid off, I'm on hard times without much help.

"Let them eat cake," Phil says, to which I say, hey Phil, eat THIS.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Viral Cynicism (or, In Search of the Original Terrorist Fist-Jab)

2008-07-08T09:12:00.003-04:00

Where everything is for sale, every communication needs to be evaluated as though it is advertising.

That thought came to me after thinking a bit about viral engineering. Not the biological kind, I mean the viral videos that prowl the internet. Some are natural, spontaneous, stupid videos that someone put together or caught on camera that are hilarious and get passed on a lot. Contrast that with those that are engineered. They are made to look spontaneous, but they're carefully choreographed and injected into the internet video stream to hopefully generate discussion and function as free advertising, a virus that gets your point across.

It's the internet's answer to the publicity stunt. It might even be simpler than that: it's the same old publicity stunts, simply harnessing the individual's power of the internet instead of the relatively fewer newspaper gossip columns.

I'm not really sure it's a bad thing to catch a video virus even if it is engineered. After all, you get entertainment out of it. What's really dangerous is when its propaganda.

For example, yet another throw-away-blonde from the Fox News network (E.D. Hill) referred to Obama's fist bump as a "terrorist fist-jab." This was hilarious on many levels. The first is that it served as yet another tally in the mounting evidence that TV news pundits are terrifically out-of-touch. Anyone who has even a toe outside the ivory tower knows that the fist bump is the modern high-five, a congratulatory gesture friendly to germophobes.

What added to the hilarity was the naked and feeble attempt at labeling Obama a terrorist. I challenge anyone to find a reference to a "terrorist fist-jab," or any video or image of terrorists (and ONLY terrorists) performing the gesture prior to Bimbo the Wonder Pundit calling it such. I almost feel sorry for her, she was clearly just doing what her bosses at Fox had instructed: trying at all costs to paint Obama as a terrorist. Her reward? They eliminated her show. Swim with sharks, E.D. and eventually they'll eat you. See you in Maxim.

Fox fools have tried and failed at viral engineering as well. Bill O'Reilly wrote a shitty book (Culture Warrior) in an effort to get his label "SP's" (Secular Progressives) to catch on as convenient slang for American enemies of America, like the word "communist" once functioned. Ann Coulter has found some kind of publishing success pandering to her hateful idiot fan base by calling fellow Americans "liberals" and treating it as an insult. So Bill tried to dish out the same bigotry.

It's clear the hate-marketers feel their dumbass fans are unable to think about any subject that does not invoke a good guy vs. bad guy narrative. I can just picture a Fox News viewer upon accidentally encountering reality, where it is not clear who is wrong or right: "God dammit," he laments, "Who am I supposed to hate?"

Anyway, getting back to engineered viruses: Another suspect is the LEGO creation of a giant boulder and a re-enacting of the scene from the original Indiana Jones. This video seemed to surface (May 16, 2008) a little closely with release of the latest Indiana Jones movie (May 22, 2008) AND with the release of the LEGO Indiana Jones video game (June 3, 2008). Coincidence or viral engineering?

Another fake viral suspect? Tim McGraw ousting an unruly fan. What really made me think this one was suspicious was at one point during the video, McGraw cocked back his fist so far it could have been seen from space. It was very dramatic and reminded me of pro-wrestling's slow moving theater. It also happened to coincide with his song's lyrics, "I ain't lookin' for trouble..." How convenient. Millions of people watched the video and thought to themselves, "Wow, what a good guy." News networks picked up the video (that's where I saw it) and provided him free advertising for his albums.

Here's where we come to the true infection of the fake viral: cynicism. Maybe Tim McGraw really is a good guy, maybe he was ousting a truly unruly fan. But viral cynicism has infected me, so I question it. He's not really helping get rid of an asshole, he's just trying to get his name in the news.

Thinking cynically of the LEGO video, was it a bunch of dudes getting a crazy fun idea with LEGOs and Indiana Jones? Nah, it's just to get a buzz going about some new products.

It's cynical, but that's the damage done when a society tries to inject advertising into everything. Kurt Vonnegut said, "What passes for culture in my mind is really a bunch of commercials."

So here we are: what's real? What's spontaneous and what's fabricated? We'll never really know (except in the case of the clumsy efforts at Fox.) It's harmless when I consider a LEGO project or a singer's chivalry. But when someone uses it as propaganda, then we've moved from publicity stunts to slander.

I'm skeptical by nature, so maybe it's just me. Why be so damn thoughtful about it? If it's a free video and makes you laugh, makes you smile, enjoy it as such and leave it at that. As long as they stay in the realm of entertainment, fine, but once they move into the world of politics, of factual news, then the virals deserve the cynicism necessary to learn anything in that field.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Humanity Vs. Monsters

2008-06-25T10:31:00.002-04:00

As you can see from the fact that both this and last time's blog entries are videos spanking John "The McCandidate" McCain for joking about war, his Okay-with-War stance really burns my ass.

Like the MoveOn ad says, "You can't have [my son]." I totally agree. I'm without children and always will be, but that won't stop me from strongly discouraging any one I know from joining the U.S. military, should they ever entertain the idea.

No one I love is going to feed McCain's loony vision of war without end. You can't have them. You can't use them as the security force for private oil business. You can't use them as the living shields of oil rigs. As Dick Cheney would say, "Fuck yourself."

So, as always when more than ten seconds pass without me having some kind of angst, I get self-conscious. Am I being uptight or something? John McInsane did say he was joking. I am taking the joke too seriously?

Fuck that line of thinking. This is WAR we're talking about. Hell on earth. The absolute worst creation of mankind on a grand scale. People killed, maimed for life, physically, mentally, emotionally. Why should I even entertain the idea that I'm uptight for refusing to laugh at a "joke" about it.

It's well-past time to severely condemn asshole pundits or politicians who "joke" about war, who casually threaten other countries with it, who call for the assassination of leaders, etc. as if these are all things that can be ordered up with minimal effort and no damage, like ordering a pizza.

So push pause on my regularly scheduled angst. I'm glad I'm uptight about war. If I wasn't I'd be an asshole just like McCain or Bush. Whether it's McCain singing "Bomb Iran" or Bush joking about being unable to find the WMD that people who wanted to serve America died looking for, it's time for humanity to stand up to these monsters.

Yes, monsters. If you joke about people in agony, people killed, entire lives, families, nations ruined destroyed, washed in blood and body parts, then you are a monster and my disgust is the very least of the punishment you deserve.

Below is the video equivalent of this blog entry. If you can't see the embedded file, go to this link.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Experience Does Not Guarantee Wisdom

2008-06-11T12:03:00.007-04:00

Taking inspiration from Samuel L. Jackson and the stupid movie Snakes on a Plane, let me say, "I am sick of these motherfuckin' warmongers casually threatening more motherfuckin' wars!"

Ahem. More articulately, let me start by saying I have visited the following thoughts several times because they're so counter-intuitive I need to keep reviewing their truth.

We think someone who has experienced racism would never discriminate against another, but they do. We think someone who is old would heave learned so much they would never be foolish, but they are. We think someone who has been abused would never be cruel, but they are. We think if someone has given birth they would surely be compassionate, but they aren't always. We think someone who has suffered due to war, they would understand its gravity, but they don't. We think someone who has been educated must be smart, but they aren't.

Maybe it's me or maybe it's American society's constant experience with people masquerading as experts who are as wrong often as not. Whatever the source, it is apparent that experiencing something does not translate into wisdom. Without a skill for appreciation, thoughtfulness or reflection, a willingness or an ability to change, a person could go through the most spiritual experience possible and still come out the other end as they began, as a superficial jackass.

Speaking of John McCain, he's running for president on a platform that he's experienced with war and he knows how horrific it is, therefore he expects us to take the intuitive route and believe that with all that experience, he must understand about war, be good at it, and understand its cost.

Yet he clearly doesn't. He made a joke of bombing Iran. Then when questioned about it, he said it was a joke and if you don't understand to get a life. It's all on video here.

No, John. No. You get a fucking life. If you're as impacted by the horrors of war as your ad 'Safe' claims, you would never, even in jest, have sung a tune to Bomb Iran. Clearly you didn't learn anything from your Vietnam years. If you understood war, you would understand that killing another human isn't something to joke about, even if they deserve it. You would understand that bombs don't kill only your enemies, they kill innocents caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Finally, leaving all that aside, if you don't mind yukkin' it up about killing your fellow human being, then you need to be kept away from any weapon and probably even sharp objects.

One more thing, John. There's this thing you would probably call The You Tube, where anyone can see your self-contradictory words, line them up and compare. Check it out. Maybe you'll learn something about yourself, but I doubt it.

(If you can't see the embedded file below, just follow this link.)

P.S. As you can see, my latest fad is video remixing, just not with Adobe Premiere Elements 4.0. It worked great for a couple days before it went into constant crash mode. So I had to trade it in for Ulead VideoStudio 11.5 Plus. Ah, much better. No crashes yet. Anyway, I just had to mention that because last blog I gave Adobe a plug. Consider the plug retracted!

An Intimate Q&A with Bill O'Reilly

2008-05-26T15:26:00.004-04:00

I always seem to be several years behind the times. I've finally, FINALLY, gotten Adobe Premiere Elements 4.0, a video editing program, so I can start making kick-ass videos. I intend to do a few of myself regarding my novel, Where Did This Come From? Until then, I'll just have to remix the Bill O'Reilly spaz-out video that's burning up the internets these days.

If you can't see the embedded file below, just follow this link to YouTube. Enjoy!

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

In Defense of Wikipedia

2008-05-20T15:23:00.002-04:00

In any debate on the web, it's often that someone will reinforce their point with a link to Wikipedia. Opponents of the defended perspective will then scoff. "You can't trust Wikipedia," they claim, "It's editable by everyone. Some nut-job could get on there and say the moon is pink with purple polka-dots, or George W. Bush's head is actually not up his ass, or something equally false."

The accusation is entirely true, but the implication is totally false. Wikipedia is editable by users and therefore some whacko can attack it. However, being editable is also its strength. As quickly as some jerk can sabotage an article, an honest user can repair it.

Those who spew the reflexive anti-Wikipedia critique display a profound lack of ignorance about what type of media a democracy should bring forth. Apparently, these anti-Wikipedia folks believe that if a medium is editable it is more likely to be wrong. Reworded: If it's more democratic, it's not to be trusted. Notch that as yet another anti-American sentiment coming from those who claim to be true Americans.

Let's compare media on the other end of editable spectrum: for example, The Fox "News" Channel. I could have compared Wikipedia to any of the major TV networks because the TV shows are completely controlled by the rich clique that owns them and no one else, but let's pick on Fox since they're the worst of the worst.

Wikipedia ends up being far more reliable than Fox News because Wikipedia is the medium of a free society, while Fox News is the medium of a dictatorship. With Wikipedia, anyone can change errors and remove bias, there are even mechanisms and processes in place to moderate hotly disputed topics. Those pages are like a free tutorial on productive debate tactics!

Contrast that environment with Fox News, where you can't change what they say, even when it's screamingly, demonstrably, conveniently biased and/or wrong. The only way you can alter Fox News content is to hope their gate-keepers let you on as a caller or writer, and that's only going to happen if you agree with them, they disagree and are ready to shout you down, or they don't get the joke. On Wikipedia, you sign up and you're on.

Wikipedia's writing guidelines encourage people to verify their sources as well, a basic professionalism Fox News rarely if ever offers.

So, for those who scoff at Wikipedia, and gasp "It's unreliable because it can be edited by anyone." I return your scoff sevenfold, as I mock Fox News, gasping, "It's unreliable because it cannot be edited at all."

I've picked on Fox News, because they're the ones out to sabotage any reliable public discourse. So let me take a moment to quasi-defend the other uneditable media who seem to want to do a good job. There is something to be said for journalistic standards which the more professional networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) more or less adhere to. Yes, there is something to be said for that, but is an elite driven media that's totally biased (Fox) any better than an elite-driven media that's only subtlely biased (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.)?

Or is journalism really just using the basic skills we all learned in grade school while writing book reports? All journalism takes is access to information, which the internet provides. Then anyone can analyze, comment and deduce.

The anti-Wikipedia reflex is a perversion of healthy consider-the-source skepticism. You should always consider the source, but you shouldn't reflexively write off the source. Even the world's biggest liar can say the sky is blue. Even Fox News can claim the truth: that George W. Bush's head is in fact, up his ass. They simply choose not to.

Wikipedia is the media you should expect to find in a working democracy. Fox News is the media you should expect to find in a working dictatorship. Gandhi said we should try to be the change we want to be in the world, so I know which media I'm going to trust and which I'm going to avoid.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Bush responsible for more American deaths than Bin Laden

2008-04-28T19:42:00.004-04:00

Everyone knows you can quote statistics how you like to make your point. So it was with a very skeptical mind that I examined the following thought when it occurred to me:

Osama Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans needlessly on 9/11. George W. Bush killed over 4,050 Americans needlessly in Iraq. Therefore, Bush is more dangerous to Americans.

Living in the USA my whole life, I've been taught from a young age that the president is someone to be respected, admired, nearly worshipped. As an adult, I'm not so swayed by the trappings of royalty, the bluster of the wealthy class, or the traditions of admiring the emperor's clothes. Even so, some remnant part of my grade school mind recoiled at the fact.

Is it possible? Is it so that Bin Laden, the sworn enemy of the USA, is actually LESS deadly for Americans than The President? Though President Bush certainly doesn't deserve the mental acrobatics, I tried to punch a hole in what was implied by the cold data.

* * *

Bush just wanted to make the world a better place.
This argument vaporizes. So did Bin Laden. So did Hitler. So did The Crusaders. Wherever there are lots of people dying, the one who caused it is safe far away, claiming it's all to make the world a better place.

Bush did not intend to kill Americans.
This has some merit. Bin Laden intended to kill Americans. Bush would have been fine (one hopes) if, as his goon squad predicted, American troops were greeted in Iraq as liberators, but do intentions mean anything? Actions and results are what matter. Believe if you choose that Bush doesn't want to kill Americans, but Americans end up dead when he's in charge, more than when someone is specifically trying to kill them.

What about financial damage?
Numbers on the internet are all over the place (sites can't even agree on how many zeroes constitute a billion.) Regardless, Bush's War in Iraq is always listed higher, as much as five times higher. 9/11 was terribly damaging financially, but it was a one-day event. Compare that to a five year-plus war. Like the death count, the financial cost of Bush's War in Iraq keeps growing.

What if you could live next door to Bush or Bin Laden?
What is this thought doing here? Anyway, I would choose neither. I distrust anyone who manipulates others for their goals. I conjured up several other what-if questions like this one. For example: Would you rather have Bin Laden as president instead of Bush? Who cares? This is all theoretical; it doesn't change the actual body count.

Civilians versus Armed Forces
Bin Laden killed primarily American civilians, Bush has killed primarily American military personnel. True, but I'm personally reluctant to imply that military lives mean less. Their families grieve just the same. Their families still wish that an influential man had not put them in harm's way for his own ambitions.

Bush's War in Iraq was necessary
If that is what you believe, then the comparison between Bush and Bin Laden means little, unless maybe you're the family of one of those 4,050-plus, then maybe (but not necessarily) you might have hard feelings toward Bush. What convinces me that Bush's War in Iraq was desired and not needed was all the deception. The Bush Administration went to great lengths to make the war in Iraq happen. They committed treason by exposing a CIA agent when her husband went against their plans, they used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to attack Iraq, they lied about weapons in Iraq. The list goes on and on. If the war was so necessary, the case for it could have been made without such antics.

What about other presidents who led the nation to war that resulted in millions of casualties? Could they be said to be as dangerous as Bin Laden? Isn't being dangerous a side-effect of being powerful?
Not a bad point, but we can't do anything about the past. War should be avoided as much as possible, but that's rarely the case (not matter what words deny it.) Regardless of what happened then, I can only speak out about now. Bush's War in Iraq was started ostensibly as a result of the actions of an evil man named Bin Laden. I think they were more the result of an evil man named Bush. I would agree lots of wars were unnecessary, though. World War I and Vietnam come immediately to mind.

* * *

This all brings us to the common pro-war justification: "It's better to fight them there than here." No. Actually, it's not. The really dangerous enemy is the one that is close to you, that knows you and your home. Seeing the confrontation the US military has endured from the locals in Iraq and Afghanistan, a better offense against terrorism would be a strong defense. In short, it would be better to fight "them" here with more secure infrastructure, better airport security, relevant surveillance and a civilian population supportive of such efforts. Plus, the military wouldn't be fulfilling Bin Laden's dreams of uniting the Arab world against the USA.

Stroll through the graveyard or check the bills and it's shockingly clear: George W. Bush is more dangerous to Americans than Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden's actions began and climaxed with 9/11. Bush probably grew more dangerous (was responsible for more American deaths) as you read this.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

John McCain the Serial Killer who is also a Transsexual

2008-04-25T09:44:00.003-04:00

A lot of con(artist)servatives, when mentioning Barack Obama, make certain to quote his full name: Barack Hussein Obama*. Their apparent goal is to play on people's racism, as if by mentioning his Arabic middle name, "Hussein" they are uncovering a terrible secret or illuminating a frightening fact.

I guess this means complete idiots don't read Shakespeare! Otherwise they would know names don't mean much: "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

The full-name quoters instead count on this reaction: "Good heavens! Obama has a middle name identical to the last name of Saddam Hussein, who once was the BFF of the Bush Criminal Regime but is sooo not popular anymore!"

Do I really need to say that we should base our judgments of people on their actions, rather than the collection of letters that make up their name? Apparently.

Anyway, for those that are so concerned that Obama's middle name is Hussein, I need to alert them to a far more terrifying fact: John Sidney McCain not only has a girl's name for a middle name, but also shares a first name with serial killer John Wayne Gacy!

Delving into this meaningful issue even further, we should note that "Jack" is a nickname for John. Therefore, "Jack" the Ripper was actually John the Ripper. That makes TWO serial killers (two AT LEAST!) with a name IDENTICAL to John Sidney McCain. Yikes! I'm not giving my vote to a transsexual serial killer!

*I try to provide a link to the claims I make, to back them up with fact. In this case I am not because I refuse to help any of these moronic websites get traffic. Look it up in your favorite search engine. You'll find it.

===

Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

The (updated) Rite of Spring: Gas prices up again? Golly gee, why?

2008-04-15T15:09:00.002-04:00

No matter how hard humanity tries, our pagan nature stays with us. I'm referring to the traditions that occur at certain seasonal points of the year. In this case, at this time of year, it's The Rite of Spring.

Culture-snobs everywhere will know that "The Rite of Spring" (in French: "Le Sacre du printemps") is the name of a ballet symphony by Igor Stravinsky. In this gory tale, a bunch of pagans get this maiden (an old-school p.c. term for "female virgin") to dance herself to death. Actually, maybe they kill her as a group.

Anyway, she ends up dead, and by her dying, Spring is celebrated. Don't ask why. That's just how our whacky pagan nature goes. I guess we humans think if we don't do something, Spring will never come, or we think a being powerful enough to create the universe is petty enough to need our thanks. Either way it always results in a periodically occurring bizarre societal non-sequitur, as in: "Spring is here! Yay! Let's kill a virgin!"

Okay, but the title of this article included the phrase "gas prices." What the hell does a maiden dancing herself to death in an ancient pagan ritual have to do with gas prices? The point I'm making is that we might appear on the surface to have ditched silly seasonal rituals, but we so totally have not.

For example, it’s Spring time again and Summer is closing fast. So what does that mean? Time to get out your warm-weather clothes? Time to install the air conditioners? Time to head for the beach? Sure. But even more regular than those traditions is the call to the seasonal dance by our modern criers, the news media. It goes like this:

Gas prices are up, and golly gee, no one seems to know exactly why.

Having heard the call, the traditional parties gather for the ritual. Those parties include Congress and oil company executives. The media narrates the play, and in keeping with lame stories world-wide, includes a prophecy at the start that gives away the ending:

Congress will be getting a committee to find out if there is any wrongdoing or price-gouging by the oil companies. Chances are, it’s just supply and demand because people are traveling more in the summer, so they want gas more, and the increased demand raises the price.

Everyone knows their part. Everyone says their lines from memory. Sometimes those who play Congress will even bring in the oil company CEOs to testify. Then comes the only real variation in this yearly tradition: will Congress angrily demand answers?

The pagan circle is filled with mock theatrical tension! (Open-OH-mouths covered with hands, eyes wide open!)

On a whim as random as the Spring winds, Congress chooses to demand answers or not.

If it doesn't, it's because Congress decided there was no wrongdoing so nothing happens. If it does happen, the CEOs deny any wrongdoing, Congress believes them and then nothing happens. Except, Spring is here! Summer is coming!

Then that’s the last we’ll hear of that, until next Spring. The question of why gas prices are so high while at the same time oil company profits are higher then previously will fade away, preempted by another summer news tradition: Boy is it HOT!

So once again, despite record profits, endless oil wars, an economy under pressure, screaming consumers and a faux-enraged Congress, the oil company CEOs shrug and say, "It's just our luck! There's no shady dealings here!" Life goes on as if nothing changed, because nothing did. Oil companies got rich again, their executives, the media and Congress did their obligatory dance to commemorate the arrival of Spring and the coming of Summer, and the earth kept on spinning.

(Here's some sample news stories, Rites of Spring across the last few years: 2008 . 2007 . 2006 . 2005 . 2004: You get the idea.)

===

Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Wal-Mart pulls a Darth Vader

2008-04-02T10:51:00.000-04:00

Wal-Mart has decided not to take money from a brain-damaged woman!

It doesn't sound as great when put like that, but I think it's still cause for a micro-mini celebration. It shows that someone at Wal-Mart had a heart. Or more likely, at least they realized their massive P.R. blunder. But hey, P.R. blunders don't happen unless a lot of people get mad at an injustice, so, major ups to all who raised a stink about this!

See Wal-Mart, even a union-busting, mom-and-pop store demolishing behemoth like you can do the right thing when you try. Now let's see what else you can do to stop being a force of undemocratic oppression. Keep going in this positive direction.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

What's Wrong With the USA? Wal-Mart Offers a Clue.

2008-03-31T08:57:00.016-04:00

A lot of people in the USA (myself included) are asking these days, "What's wrong with our country?"

I have the answer: a company worth well over $90 billion spends millions on lawyers to recoup far less than that, from a brain damaged woman whose son was killed in Iraq. What the hell am I talking about? What demented nightmare scenario am I referring to? Is this the latest horror flick? The plot from a suspense thriller?

No, it's just your local Wal-Mart.

Check out this story on CNN's website: Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit. Here's a synopsis: Woman works for Wal-Mart. Woman gets hit by truck. Wal-Mart pays out $470,000 as part of their health plan. Woman sues truck company, wins one million, gets $417,000 (rest goes to legal fees.) Wal-Mart health policy says they have the right to sue for money paid out when an employee wins damages. Wal-Mart sues to take back the $470,000 they spent. They win. Later, woman's son dies in Iraq.

So, my fellow Americans, are you still wondering what's wrong with our country? I'm not. It's the people who pursued this suit for Wal-Mart.

According to the article, Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley takes a shot at justification: "this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan." So is he saying every Wal-Mart employee racks up $470,000 in health expenses? Or is he saying every Wal-Mart employee is brain-damaged? Wasn't this woman, as an employee, paying into the plan on her own? Didn't she cover her own expenses?

The CNN article also states Wal-Mart "has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit." Fine, they have the RIGHT, but not the OBLIGATION. Just because you have the right doesn't make it right. Did anyone along the way say "Wait a minute, do we really need to do this? Does Wal-Mart really need this money? Can't we let this one go?" Did anyone resign in protest? Did anyone protest at all? It doesn't seem like it, and that's the problem.

The comments supporting Wal-Mart on the CNN message board for this story came in the predictable two flavors.

There's the "corporations don't owe us anything" crowd. I don't know when the reason for people's existence was to support corporations instead of the other way around, but I'll take them at their word. So they'll understand when I laugh as Wal-Mart builds a twenty-four hour super-center in their backyard. When Blackwater sets up a firing range near their kids' playground, I'll crack up. When Exxon spills oil in their drinking water and refuses to pay for it, I'm going to repeat their words: "Hey, corporations don't owe you anything!" You want corporations to be unregulated? Then you'll understand my laughter as they run you down.

The other flavor of negative input? "OMG! What a sense of entitlement!" The injured woman did pay into Wal-Mart's plan, so shouldn't she be entitled? I really have to think you're missing a conscience if you're accusing a brain-damaged woman, who can't remember her son is dead and relives the pain every time she's told, of having a "sense of entitlement." How dare she believe she deserves the health-care she paid for!

We should ALL feel entitled to some basic human decency. Why? Do I really need to explain WHY? Do you want to live in a world where people are not entitled to respect? Anyway, as Americans, we pay taxes. The roads that trucks drive on to ship Wal-Mart crap, we paid for. The police forces that throw people in jail for stealing Wal-Mart crap, we paid for. I'm not paying taxes for kicks. I'm paying them to support the infrastructure of a nation. You and I paid for that infrastructure so Wal-Mart could make money selling crap.

Corporations DO owe us something.

As long as the USA allows corporations to trample people, this country will remain a place prone to viciousness of the most absurd variety, like this case.

Even from a solely business standpoint, pursuing this case was totally asinine. The only way Wal-Mart could have scored more negative publicity points is if they resurrected Jack the Ripper and made him their spokesperson: "We're slashing prices!"

I can see their public relations team now, nodding their heads. "Hey, that's not a bad idea!"

SOURCE: Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit. By Randi Kaye. CNN website, March 25, 2008.

p.s. I've sent Wal-Mart the following letter and copied Michael Moore and Robert Greenwald:

Your website (Wal-Mart Facts and News-How We Help-Military Support) makes many claims about supporting the troops. I am wondering how these noble commitments to U.S. troops are reconciled with suing a severely injured former employee of yours whose son died in Iraq? Reference this story on CNN's website: Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit. March 25, 2008. I challenge you to live up the image you're so desperately trying to manufacture, and help this woman. Thank you.

===

March 19 is Iraq's September 11

2008-03-19T10:02:00.003-04:00

What else can March 19 be but Iraq's September 11, when an innocent people were made to suffer for the sinister actions of their so-called leaders?

September 11 surely taught Americans a lot about the world, but March 19 taught the world a lot about Americans. Hell, I am an American and March 19 taught me a lot about America. In no particular order:

Lesson 1: Victory doesn't need a description. It's fine just as a word. Of the many questions on my mind the biggest one is, what exactly does victory look like? When will the war pigs be satisfied? Stupid question, I know; war pigs are never satisfied. Yet they keep talking about victory without ever describing it. What is it to them? Every Iraqi fled or dead? An oil pipeline direct from Baghdad to the Bush Ranch? A democracy in Iraq that miraculously votes to sell oil only to the United States? This ongoing atrocity is the first and biggest clue they're not thinking endgame. (Just as this entry was going into the blogosphere, I ran across this. At least someone besides myself is wondering about how to make the Iraq War end. Too bad few if any in control are.)

Lesson 2: Our media isn't a check or a balance. It's an echo, or at best a very delayed check. Look at this severely promptness-challenged article in the Washington Post. It's been five years since the beginning of the Iraq war, and they finally get around to asking, "Golly, do you think this war by an oil baron for control of a nation with lots of oil wealth has anything to do with oil?" I can't wait to see The Washington Post's piece next week: "Should America get out of Vietnam?"

Lesson 3: Middle names are a great substitute for real political critiques. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Oh my god, the dude's MIDDLE name is Hussein, which is the same collection of letters of the LAST NAME as the dictator of Iraq that the Bush junta assassinated. Therefore, he must be evil.

Lesson 4: Credit cards rule! Who cares if you can't pay now? Just rack up the debt and pay it later! John Sidney McCain (isn't Sidney a girl's name?) says if we must, the US will stay 100 years in Iraq as long as Americans are not being injured or killed. What a disclaimer for a land that's already taken 4,000 American lives! Only ninety-five more years (or 76,000 more American lives) to go! Bring it on you terrorist bastards! Our credit card has no limit so we can afford anything! We'll just keep pushing that debt into the future. Get to work, grandkids, because Uncle Sidney is paying it forward big time!

Lesson 5: Experience does not guarantee wisdom. Legend says that John Sidney McCain was tortured for five and a half years in Vietnam. It's stunning that someone so affected by war would be fine with prolonging it. Who could forget his Bomb Iran ditty? If that's someone who doesn't appreciate the gravity of war, someone who doesn't understand that bombs kill civilians as much as "bad guys," I don't know who is.

Lesson 6: Those of us tangled up in thinking, facts, consciences and humanity can over-think things. We brainstorm rationales: maybe controlling Iraq's oil made sense. Maybe they felt the USA had to secure the Iraqi oil supply before China or Russia could. That's probably the strongest part of the dozens of arguments tossed about to justify the Iraq war. If that was the reason, why didn't they just say that? Because people are squeamish about learning where their possessions come from? That's true, but this is a war here. If you're going to ask someone to die for a cause, can you at least have the courtesy to explain to them exactly what cause they're dying for? I guess not. It must be greed, plain and simple. Lesson learned.

Lesson 7: You can't critique the war. The minute you corner someone about all the corruption and contradiction the Iraq war has unleashed, they drop into a defensive stance reflexive as a turtle. "Oh yeah? Well I respect the troops." Somehow pushing someone in front of live bullets is a way of respecting them more than pulling them to safety. I hope I never run into a doctor who feels the same! Witness Lie-Master Karl Rove. (Video) Rove was a big part of helping the Iraq War happen and when he's called to account, he gets righteous, claiming our soldiers have suffered and he has witnessed it. Hey Rove! They suffered because of you, asshole! I'm sure they totally appreciate you using their pain as a backdrop to your "I Care So Much" drama, starring you.

Lesson 8: A turd in the hand is worth as much as Bush. A lot of whack-jobs are concerned that Barack Hussein Obama is a sleeper terrorist candidate ready to tank the USA once he gets in the highest office. They don't even notice someone fits that description and is in the white house: George W. "The Recessionator" Bush.

Lesson 9: Some Americans are as ignorant as the terrorists they claim to be against. They don't know anything about foreign countries, they don't try to learn, they just want to kill (no, they want SOMEONE ELSE to kill) anyone who looks different. They're basically Taliban but living in America and wearing American flags, and yet they embody none of the ideals of America.

So everything's a mess.

Now that we are near John Sidney McCain's 1/20th mark of Iraq War completion, I've experienced a strange synchronicity. All this negativity caused by the war and I just finished a book about the most incredible and positive story. As typical with the best ideas, it's quiet, it's simple, and it's largely ignored and unknown. It also costs a fraction of a single bomb. What's the answer to fighting terrorism? Schools. Schools? Yes, schools.

Read Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortensen and David Oliver Relin. The story is about how Mortensen was trying to climb mountains in Pakistan, failed, was helped by the locals and promised to build them a school as thanks. After about fifteen years, he now runs the Central Asia Institute that helps build schools in areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan where terrorist recruitment is high. When children (especially young girls) can educate themselves, extremist recruitment loses traction.

If fighting terrorism was the real priority, helping people help themselves would be the answer, not bombing them. Either we learn the lessons of Three Cups of Tea, or we're going to need far more than another 100 years to solve anything.

===

The Prince Harry revealers: Tools in every sense of the word

2008-03-03T11:12:00.002-05:00

Yes, I am paying attention, but I still can't help it. No matter how I try, I fail to be outraged. I know that's a totally inappropriate response when confronted with any news story the media instructs us to be outraged about, but that's where I am.

I refer to the events of recent weeks, when it was revealed in the media that the UK's Prince Harry was secretly in military service in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. This was a secret that had been kept by the UK's media for several weeks. However, once Prince Harry's location was publicized, it was deemed best that he be removed from the deadly front since he would be a primary target. The details of Harry's presence in a war-zone were first revealed by the Australian tabloid New Idea and picked up by other news outlets, including the boring-for-all-but-most-vapid-political-junkies website, the Drudge Report.(1)

Let's recap the official story: The British media agreed to keep Harry's location secret. Non-UK media acquired knowledge of Prince Harry's location and publicized it. Since Harry was undercover, this publicity was dangerous to him. Harry was therefore removed from the front line.

Here is a scenario I find much more plausible: Once the British media bought into keeping Harry's location secret, someone from the British secret service, assigned to protect the royals at all costs, purposely revealed Harry's location to select non-UK media, knowing they would publicize it. Harry was therefore removed from the front line.

I believe my scenario is much more likely. It's a win-win situation for all the parties involved: the British royal family has a way to extract Harry without raising questions of favoritism, the entire British populace gets to rage at the world rather than be furious at each other, and attention-whore tabloids like The Drudge Report and New Idea get more attention.

The only non-cynical part of this tale might be Harry himself. He could be causing trouble for those who prefer to think of him as a symbol and not a human being. His mother, the late Princess Diana, suffered a similar fate, and even so, she publicized the tragedy of unexploded landmines when she could have been buying expensive shoes. I'm not trying to insult Harry with my guessing at how the machine works. I'm trying to insult the people who ruin a young man's life by making him a "royal." If Harry really wanted to, he likely could have got out of going at all, so give him that. Keep in mind, my view on the events allows that the information may have been leaked without Harry's knowledge, without his consent, possibly even against his consent.

Now let's talk about tools.

To call someone a "tool" is an insult. Used in a general sense, it means the same as "asshole." Taken to be a synonym with asshole, then obviously Drudge and his tabloid kin can be referred to as tools.

However, Drudge, New Idea and company are also tools with the more common definition. That is, they are objects that are useful to accomplishing something, like a hammer is useful in pounding in a nail. Tabloids are convenient news release orifices for news items you want publicized but for some reason, you don't want to release yourself.

This is what makes a tool: you don't need to be told what to do, you just do it. Tabloids don't need to be fed sensitive information, told not to tell anyone, and then go tell everyone. That's what they do. The more you tell them not to scream it, the louder they'll scream it. They're very predictable, nearly robotic, as unthinking as a hammer in that way.

Just like whatever division of the UK's secret service that is assigned to protecting Harry's life does not need to be told to get him off the deadly front-line ASAP. They just did what they needed to, reflexively and without consulting many if any.

It would only take one person. Witness the power of the media.

So is this what really happened? I don't know. I'll never know. Neither will you. The brilliance of the plan is that because the entire British media bought into the secrecy, it could be blamed on any of them. I suppose if you could get New Idea to say who initially told them, you might be able to backtrack it sufficiently.

At this point, the effort out-paces the desire. Beyond my lazy theorizing here, I just don't care. Harry is a royal, he's going to get special treatment as much as he may struggle against it. In a way, it's disturbing. There could be a genuine person in that body that for some is just a symbol like a battlefield banner, or a living advertisement. The poor guy is likely to get corrupted the more that he's treated like that, but we'll see.

I wish him luck.

SOURCE: (1)Australian magazine broke Prince Harry story

===

Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at www.LarryNocella.com.

Earning Your Stripes: I hope I die before I get old (and stupid) Or, Stalking the Silver-Striped Human

2008-02-19T11:23:00.002-05:00

Lately I have more prominent white hairs in my sideburns. They show up like stars on a cloudless night, since my hair is naturally solid black.

On the one hand, I thought about plucking them. On the other, I wondered about dyeing them. Back to the previous hand, I thought about leaving them, letting my age show. Second time to the second hand, I embraced them.

I've earned those grays. They're a testament to all the difficulties I've survived. All this and age, too! Let those suckers show.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't had the most difficult life, but I've had my challenges. Through a combination of luck, determination and just plain stubbornness, I've gotten through. Plus, I must acknowledge against my own humility and carefully hidden lack of self-esteem that some of my good fortune (certainly not all of it) has to be attributed to some measure of skill. For example, my novel didn't write itself!

So hell yeah, I'm getting old. Fortunately, I'm not one of those people who think that just by virtue of years, I am deserving of respect and what I say is wise. Age alone is no guarantee of wisdom. Conduct alone demands respect and wisdom is for those who absorb lessons from experience.

In my mind, one of the greatest tragic creatures of the world is an old person who is a bigot. The enemy of bigotry is experience. Whenever I see an old person who believes in the same old tired prejudices, I can't help but think, "All this time you've been alive, all the chances you had to see things, experience things, talk to people, read and/or learn yet you still haven't noticed that not every (ethnic slur) is a criminal? You still haven't noticed that generalities don't work?"

Maybe my intuition is off. My expectation is that as one gets older, one loosens up. One should realize that the world is a mystery, and respect that. But I suppose the phenomenon of the aged moron could be part of the hardening process of aging.

I don't think it's inevitable, though. Chances are, old morons began as young morons. Another sign of hope is that there are lots of people, much older than I, as energetic and wise and as fun as anyone could wish to be. Lately I've been researching people's ages. Anyone I admire (or even dislike) in the public eye, I look up their age. Take the presidential candidates, for example. What a drain campaigning for president must be on the body and the mind. If those people, decades older than I, can do it, then I've got a lot of good years left, should my luck continue to hold out.

So bring on the gray. No. Gray isn't the right word. It implies blah. Let's go with white. No, that's got an association with lifelessness.

Let's go with silver. One of the most feared and respected primates is the Silverback Gorilla: strong, huge, aged leaders of a primate clan. I'll think of myself as that dude's less hairy, only slightly less muscular (ha!) relative: the Silver-Striped Human. It sounds much cooler than "I'm going gray."

Hell yeah, I'm going silver. I've earned these stripes.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

The Annotated Spam (or, Conducting an Autopsy on a Spam Email)

2008-02-04T15:25:00.000-05:00

Is it really worth it to point out idiots acting idiotic? Sometimes I wonder.

Should one spend valuable time refuting what a lunatic is saying or do you let it go as obvious lunacy? Then again, in our crazy-ass world of strange theories and stranger truths, is anything really obvious lunacy? On top of that, if people didn't take the time to point out those they felt were idiots, wouldn't that decimate the media industry and crumble the already recessing US economy?

Conclusion: sometimes there is value in ignoring a nut case, when all they want is attention. When they're just trying to distract you, or when their point is irrelevant to any practical matter. Sometimes, however, it is important to address idiocy head-on. Apply the metaphor you prefer: someone has to take out the trash, someone has to clean the toilet, someone has to swat the flies, etc.

With that in mind, I'm going to dissect a spam email I ran across lately, one that slandered the target du jour of bigoted morons everywhere: Barack Obama.

Even if Obama wasn't my current pick for President in 2008, the spam email below offends me because of its stupidity. Scalpel, please.

===

SPAM: Who is Barack Obama? Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice. If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scarey to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.

AUTOPSY: Why is it that morons can't spell? I guess because they're morons. Every stupid spam I get has glaring spelling errors. There's no E in scary! I also enjoyed the barely literate answer to the opening question.

SPAM: We checked this out on 'snopes.com'. It is factual. Check for yourself.

AUTOPSY: Just checked. Snopes? Nopes! Snopes dissects this very same email. It says something sad when they tell you to check the very source that says precisely this email is a lie. (LINK: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp.)

SPAM: Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.

AUTOPSY: I like how they throw in that his middle name is Hussein any chance they can get, as if that's enough to prove he's evil. Just because an ex-ally of the USA had the same last name as this guy's middle name. That's like slandering anyone named Mohammed because of 9/11 murderer Mohammed Atta. Do you know how many people across the world are named Hussein or Mohammed or some variation thereof? What's in a name? Hey, I just made that up!

Point is, who cares about the name. You can insult anyone for their name. For example, George W. Bush has the same name as George W. Bush, a war criminal who hijacked the USA and trashed it in the early 21st century. Mitt Romney? Let's call him Shit Romney. John McCain? John Insane. Mike Huckabee? Mike Suck-a-D. (I'm really proud of that last one. Sometimes I think my wordsmith skills would have made me an excellent bully.)

SPAM: When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

AUTOPSY: I like how Muslim and Radical and Atheist are all capitalized. Saves the moron reading time, I guess. Keywords of Fear! No thought, take me straight to the Knee Jerk Zone! So Obama's parents were (if anything in this spam is to be believed) a Muslim and an Atheist. I guess we're supposed to be horrified that in the land of religious freedom, in the land open to all, someone who embodies freedom and opportunity should be scorned.

SPAM: (There's a lot more ignorance here, mostly centering about the claim that Obama is a Muslim.)

AUTOPSY: I can't even stomach to read this ignorance enough to dismantle it. See first paragraph.

SPAM: Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakart! Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

AUTOPSY: I quote, "It's politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking major public office in the United States…" I wonder why that is? Because people are bigoted towards MUSLIMS and ATHEISTS!

SPAM: Also, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran. Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches. Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.

AUTOPSY: Whoa! His middle name is Hussein! That changes everything! As for all that crap about slouching and what not, if that actually happened, it would be on YouTube in under a minute, with an obscenely misspelled title. Like "Obama Hussain are a Trateor!"

SPAM: Please forward to everyone you know.

AUTOPSY: Of course. As a spam email are you sure you don't want to tell me how I can extend my penis?

SPAM: Would you want this man leading our country?

AUTOPSY: Nah! I'd rather Bush and Cheney have another four years of demolishing the Middle East, the Economy, the American military and everything else they get their greedy oily fingers on. Please continue to educait mee with your EMALES!

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

When is it okay to cheer or laugh that someone died? Or, are The Darwin Awards funny?

2008-01-28T09:56:00.000-05:00

So, I ask you, when is it okay to cheer or laugh that someone is dead, or has died unexpectedly? Is it ever okay?

The question occurred to me while browsing the internet. Liberal media watchers noted that Conservative opinionist John Gibson was mocking actor Heath Ledger's death. Conservative media watchers noted that Liberal opinionist Lionel was mocking nature stunt-man Steve Irwin's death.

Regardless of my political make-up, I find both comments disgusting. When I hear that someone has died, I don't think of it as an opportunity to make a joke, especially if they are some kind of entertainer and nothing more. Apparently I'm some kind of mutant.

Now that I've gotten on my high horse, let's really put it to the test: what if a nasty person died? What if a sponsor of mass murder like George W. Bush died? Would that be something worth cheering or mocking?

That's a tough question for me. Knowing that George W. Bush is a key component in keeping the occupation of Iraq and all the death, sorrow and suffering that follows going, could his moving on be viewed as a good thing?

I think yes, but even so, it's not the sort of thing I would yuk it up about. It's just too sobering. The guy was the public face of a movement that smashed an entire nation, got lots of young Americans and lots of Iraqis of all ages killed. Some are probably dying as you read this. If Bush were to die, I don't think it would be time to roll out the goofy hat.

Maybe it's time to breathe easier, maybe hope that one death might put an end to the war or speed its end, but still, I'm always struck unlaughing by the question, how did we get here? How did things get so bad that a nutcase like George W. Bush became president and caused all this destruction? How did it come to pass that I'm relieved at the fact that someone died?

It reminds me of a guy I once heard interviewed who watched the execution of his daughter's killer. Did it make him feel better? No, he said, nothing is going to bring her back. Nothing is going to make me feel better. It was real for him, hypothetical for me, but in my hypothetical-speak, I can relate.

Still, we're talking about nasty people dying. The comments addressed at the top of this post are about entertainers who never harmed anyone. Maybe they were a little stupid in some way, but they didn't actively harm people. They deserve a little respect.

Which brings me to the Darwin Awards. In case you haven't heard, they're "awards" given out to people who die (thus supposedly contributing to human evolution) because of their stupid actions. I've never been a fan of the Darwin Awards. Stupid as the award-winners may be, they probably had loved ones who are really sad over their death. Is that worth laughing at? It's not like the person did something dumb and is going to jail or is severely embarrassed. The person is DEAD. I just can't find death all that funny. Can't we draw a line somewhere?

Some may think I'm being uptight, but I'll parry and counter that. The Darwin Awards are for lame-asses who think they're superior. Every great story in your life involves you as a potential contender for a Darwin Award. If you haven't done something crazy reckless and stupid, then you haven't lived! Any "I was so drunk and/or stoned" story is only good if it involves a brush with death, if it comes terrifyingly close to making you a Darwin Award winner. Then it's something to share the next time you're drunk and/or stoned.

You don't even have to be intoxicated, that just adds to the humor. What makes a good story is cheating death. When death wins, that's just another day at the office and who wants to laugh at that?

===